Tuesday, November 21, 2017

John Conyers Issues Statement

The AP asked Michigan Rep. John Conyers if he paid settlements due to sexual harassment. A woman claimed she was paid a settlement after being terminated from her job because she refused to have sex with him.

That he initially claimed to "know nothing" coupled with his inclusion of emotion indicates that this is not a reliable denial.

"I didn't fire ____ for not having sex with me" would be a strong denial.

This publication of the "no knowledge" led to him making a statement:

“My office resolved the allegations with an express denial of liability in order to save all involved from the rigors of protracted litigation. That should not be lost in the narrative. The resolution was not for millions of dollars, but rather for an amount that equated to a reasonable severance payment.”

Let's look at it again, with analysis:“My office resolved the allegations with an express denial of liabilityin order to save all involved from the rigors of protracted litigation. That should not be lost in the narrative. The resolution was not for millions of dollars, but rather for an amount that equated to a reasonable severance payment.”1. Denial We first note that he does not deny the allegation. The allegation is that he fired someone for refusing to have sex with him. This is an allegation of "sexual harassment." It is not flirting, it is not simply inappropriate, but it is an illegal activity. 2. He denies "liability"; not the action: the quality or state of being liable or responsible with its consequences. It avoids denying the action.

3. The need to explain why: My office resolved the allegations with an express denial of liabilityin order to save all involved from the rigors of protracted litigation.This anticipates being asked, "Why, if you didn't do it, did you make a payout?" even though no such question is posed. This is similar to the settlements of Bill O'Reilly, Michael Jackson, and many others. 4. Minimization: Here we see "the rule of the negative" in telling us, in the negative, the following: The resolution was not for millions of dollars, but rather for an amount that equated to a reasonable severance payment.”He refers to the the dollar amount, in what it wasn't, rather than issue a denial. This indicates a need to minimize the accusation against him, as if it is "less" of an accusation warranting less money.5. The problem with minimization is that he comes very close to embedding a confession, by answering the unasked question of "why" less money was spent:The resolution was not for millions of dollars, but rather for an amount that equated to a reasonable severance payment.”Considering the claim, this comes close to an admission of guilt: "severance" is related to the victim's termination. Analysis Conclusion:A woman alleged that John Conyers demanded sex from her and when she refused, he fired her. He first said he did not have knowledge of any settlements. Then, he said he was dealing with "amazement" regarding the allegation. When this was published, he then issued a statement in which he does not deny the attempt to coerce sex from the alleged victim. He goes from "not reliable" to "unreliable" to then giving us more information, including the defense of money: reporting that it was not "millions."Deception Indicated.John Conyers did not pay out money without cause. He was deceptive when he claimed to have no knowledge of such, and sought to persuade his audience of this fact: he was in "amazement" because he had no association with it. He then contradicted this with distancing language: his "office" paid out. This is an unnecessary removal of self. Given his "lack of knowledge", and his need to minimize the money issue, the public should not be surprised if more information comes out that he paid off other victims of sexual harassment and/or sexual assault and that it goes back years. The passage of time and/or how the press found these files may be the cause of his "amazement."

32 comments:

"My office resolved the allegations..."- Note he does not say he, himself, resolved the allegations. The office was not accused of firing an employee because she refused the office's advances. Nor was/is the office being accused of inappropriately touching women.

"My office resolved..."- Ownership of the office with "my" signalling both personal and corporate power and authority; yet the allegations are personally directed against John Conyers- hiding in a crowd. Note the allegations were "resolved"- not denied, refuted, nor disproved.

"with an express denial of liability..."- Denial of liability is not a denial of the accusation/allegation of the reason behind the firing. The unnecessary word "express" in conjunction with denial is an interesting addition- implying the settlement was made unusually quickly. I wonder what was going on in John Conyers political life at the time: He was running for re-election for his 27th term in 2015.

"My office resolved the allegations with an express denial of liability in order to save all involved from the rigors of protracted litigation. - Note the need to persuade re: motivation for "resolving" the allegations was "to save all involved". First of all, who are the vague "all involved" in John Conyers statement? The accusation/allegation/threatened suit was against John Conyers by his victim, not the office. Secondly, why would an office of people want/need to save themselves from being sued for something the office of people didn't do? Would you as an individual be concerned (much less compassionate) about saving your accuser time/money/publicity if your were unjustly accused of firing them because they refused your advances? No. Thirdly, Note what the office was stated to be saving the vague "all involved" from-protracted litigation. Innocent people aren't presupposing protracted litigation- the wall of truth dictates that they'll fight to the end to clear their name from the unjust accusation/attack.

"My office resolved the allegations with an express denial of liability in order to save all involved from the rigors of protracted litigation. That should not be lost in the narrative."- John Conyers is signalling priority here, the narrative. Spinning this very explosive, potentially political career ending event into a heroic deed of compassion, by attempting to sound as though he took the moral high ground and sacrificed himself via the payoff to spare the victim the rigors of going to trial.

"The resolution was not for millions of dollars, but rather for an amount that equated to a reasonable severance payment.”- Note John Conyers continual repetition of "resolved" denotes personal sensitivity to the resolution itself. When combined with "My office", it is an attempt to distance himself from the resolution. The amount is sensitive to him as well (as Peter indicated him answering questions re: the amount before they were asked). The amount is also likely sensitive to him as it came out his office budget, as opposed to Congress' Office of Compliance. It's akin to paying money under the table because he likely didn't want the Office of Compliance to know about it, and therefore the media. With 26 years in Congress on his resume at that point, he'd also served as the Chairman of the House Committee of the Judiciary for 4 years by 2015. He'd also spent 6 years chairing the House Committee on Oversight- the investigative body of the house of Representatives. John Conyers was well aware of both investigative and judicial processes within the House of Representatives, as he sat in judgement on his colleagues.

The quickest response if he'd been innocent of the acusations/allegations: "I did not make sexual advances towards ________. I did not fire ______ for refusing sexual advances. Neither I nor anyone in my office paid ____________ a settlement of any kind."

For this purpose, "leftist", is used; not Democrat (Democrat as "classic Democrat"), as "leftist" is now very different. This is my own observation, but it is also many others.

With 95% media and 99% Hollywood leftist,

Conservatives commenting is few and far between on known leftist sites. It is rare and immediately torn into, usually with name calling.

Why do leftists troll conservative sites?

Why do they feel they must intrude upon the small (-5%) sites, most often with some form of accusation (nazi, phobe, hater, racist, etc)?

I find this routinely at my FB page. One accuses me of being something dreadful (above names) but does not counter the analysis.

There is nothing to gain by this type of harassment or trolling, so why do they do it? Why must someone not only feel that Bruce Jenner is "woman of the year" but must post on conservative sites, that if you don't agree, you must be labeled with a term of hatred?

my take is conservatives tend to be live and let live so they don't go and troll the leftists, it isn't their nature.

an example would be if you don't like guns then don't buy or have one is a conservative view. the leftist view is if they don't like guns then they don't want you to have one either. this makes them agitate to have their views imposed on others.

leftists thrive on greed and envy. this is why they are always looking at others and why they can't step back and look at their neighbours with any dispassionate point of reference. the left consider themselves to be morally superior to others and that makes them try to force their views on others.

Just my personal opinion from observation, but it seems to me that most leftists cannot stand that a conservative cannot be controlled and will not "bend" and they become enraged and fixated on "crushing/forcing" that person into submission by bullying (if that doesn't work, they'll eventually resort to physical violence or encourage others to do their dirty work). I think it's the fruit of their narcissism- by not kowtowing, they perceive that as a direct insult to their intelligence. By not falling into lockstep with their "values", you're calling their core values (their intellectualism and moral superiority) into question in their mind and they rush to offense.

As Humanists, they perceive and hold themselves to be the seat of all authority, knowledge, and wisdom. Their language is violent because it is fueled by emotionalism and "their rights". They live in a largely engineered society/culture where they're catered to and esteemed; where even the slightest hint of opposition is immediately crushed (the public school system being the most obvious example). They're so steeped in emotionalism- it's all about how they feel, with little to know training or value in self-control. In reality, their aggressive, zealous intolerance actually belies personal insecurity-that they feel threatened by even the slightest opposition and are unable to tolerate a conservative expressing a differing viewpoint. Like all human beings, they want to feel like they belong; there's "acceptance" and "approval" in being part of the crowd. That's the implicit danger in allowing an engineered social environments promoting a liberal/leftist/socialist agenda to manipulate emotionally vulnerable children, adolescents, and young adults. The flip side is the inherent threat to them growing up/living/working in said system is that if they disagree, they'll be ostracized by their peers/co-workers, those in positions of authority over them, and by society at large and be subjected to immediate, vicious retribution- public humiliation and bullying (long-term, non-stop if social media is employed).

It's a Lord of the Flies, pack mentality with minion enforcers. If it didn't sometimes lead to suicides due to the bullying, defamation, loss of income, damage to personal property/life and limb, the verbal biting and devouring it would be absurdly comical. It's the grown-up temper tantrum because you won't do what I want you to...sadly enough. Again, just my opinion from what I've seen and heard in observing extended family and people when I'm out and about, reading/watching the interactions on various blogs, and reading/listening to leftist people.

General P. Malaise- That's a good observation on the nature of most Conservatives. I hadn't really thought about it, but those I know do seem to be "live and let live" as you put it. I hadn't considered greed and envy as part of the leftist equation, but the leftists I know and interact with do seem to be driven by class envy and feeling entitled to what someone else has (regardless of if the other person worked for it or inherited it). There's almost a "take it by force" mentality, coupled with the Robin Hood hero to the "poor"syndrome. It's almost (if not) a religion, complete with religious zeal and fervor, and a call to "crusade" and vanquish their "enemies". They also prize "intelligence"; it's important to their self-image to be perceived as highly intellectual.___________________________________On the flip side, I do have a few "rabid" Conservatives in our extended family who try to force the Leftists to "bow" on issues. I'm in the psychology camp, holding that political "beliefs" and religious beliefs are processed through the same brain region as emotion- therefore political views are given the same fervency and zeal as religious. Very few (if any) people are politically neutral and even agnostics have a belief system (That there is no God or higher being).

“Beyond the pain/humiliation women have endured (which is of course the paramount issue), it’s worth taking stock of the incredible drain of talent from media/entertainment taking place right now. Never has so much talent left the industry all at once.”

Peter, thank you for your comment you wrote on November 22, 2017 at 11:13 AM. It has become increasingly difficult to interact with some of the "progressive" people that I must interact with. They look at the world through an emotional lens, not with logic and critical thinking. I get amused when I am at work and can hear conversations between these progressive snowflakes. Who is the most offended!? Who is the most outraged!? Who is in the higher strata of the protected classes!? ( "I am!", "no I am!! LOL!!!) Thank you for breaking down so many topics in a rational manner. In closing, you have inadvertently given me an assignment today. That is to ponder this brilliant comment you made:

"...The leftists are the most intolerant of all. WHY? I believe the answer is critical for our work."

Leftists have an abuser mentality.They use the exact same tactics as a domestic abuser.I see it everyday on the cnn comment board. When a conservative comments (or even someone politically neutral who has a different observation than the pack of leftists, the leftists swarm to the comment and predictably attack with abusive comments that are the same types of comments an abuser says WITHOUT FAIL

1) Youre stupid2) Youre ugly (or other demeaning comments about the individuals profile picture, if the individual is attractive they will criticize anything else they can think of in the profile pic3) Youre crazy/youre out if touch with reality4) I hope you get fired from your job5) Youre retarded (or other comments indicating they think the individual is mentally handicapped6) Any observations made by a conservative will immediately by parroted back to the conservative ie. One lady commented that it was "desperate" that Anderson Cooper keeps doing non-stop reports about the "Russian conspiracy" to get Trump elected. Of course immediately a leftists attacks with "yeah as desperate as your 90's profile picture"! bc the lady had an outdated hairstyle

Just like an abuser, when the verbal insults are failing to control, the leftists then start threatening violence.

Their attitude is "how could you fail to yield to our superior opinion"?! I'll show you!

I think many leftists are mostly mad about the pro-life stance of the President. They are mad that he is trying to take away that "right". I believe that that is what the leftist men are mad about too bc they will then not be able to shirk their responsibility as a man by ordering their girlfriend/wife to get an abortion.Abusers abuse to defend their "right" to exploit their victim.Therefore, this is what the left is doing, theur victims being women & unborn children & to a lesser extent minoities who they feel superior to & enjoy their dependancy on their (fake) "benevolence".

The best way to answer your question about leftist vs rightest would be: the new and improving American brutality and 'my opinions are always the best mentality.'

I recently discovered an absurd comment by Teen Vogue editor in which she states (paraphrase from memory)I don't care if false claims of sexual harassment causes innocent men to lose their jobs, they've been oppressing women for years. In the end, the odds are in favor of a non-innocent man losing his job. That's the price I'm willing to pay.

Leftist? Or darn malicious and callous?

And, a right wing radial self-righteous news commentary-American Thinker-expounded on the Texas shooting like it was atheists against the world. Hurry up and conform to MY WAY of THINKIN' or lest ye be next. (He was a domestic violence advocate and a gun advocate. Religion, or lack of it, had nothing to do with the killings).

And, today I stumbled upon a grown woman who had been the victim of a brutal rape at the age of 12, and she was tricked into becoming a political tool to use against Hillary Clinton by Trump.She had been raped and beaten and in a coma for several days, so much damage she could never have children and now people are calling her a liar as she's changed her story and can't remember verbatim what happened when she was so brutally beaten at age 12 and then accused like a criminal and put through psychiatric tests, and polygraphs when the ME proved she'd been raped in the first place.(all the blame over a few dollars on a gofundme to help her now that she needs medical care) They mysteriously "lost" crucial evidence (part of her underwear) and therefore pseudo-science was used as critical evidence in convincing her she wanted to be raped and beaten.(I think child porn rings grab the evidence so they can run the trials in those cases where it goes missing)

The 12 yr old rape victim you mention was not used as a political tool by Trump!Hillary used unethical and now illegal tactics to defend the 41 yr old who brutally attacked & raped that 12 yr.Hillary is a nasty witch who wrote up reports about how the 12 yr allegedly "enjoyed attention from older men, was mentally unstable and often fantasized". The left sees NOTHING wrong with her doing that either.

The lab found her blood on his clothing but discarded the tested piece of material after testing. Hillary used a loophole in the law which allowed her to get the testing results deemed useless since the tested piece of evidence had been discarded. She then took the rapist's "underpants" which had no evidence on it & put them in her pocket and travelled hundreds of miles with it to have it tested in an "expert's" basement, knowing full well the lab had deemed the underpants worthless as evidence. HOW TRAVELLING WITH EVIDENCE HUNDREDS OF MILES IS NOT DEEMED TAMPERING IS BEYOND ME, but regardless her actions were sneaky, underhanded, exploitative and CORRUPT!

I think leftists run on emotion. Since emotion makes them feel better than logic, they will attack vigorously whenever and where ever they can. The more intense their attacks, the better it makes them feel (for whatever cause they are involved in).

leftist also think they can fix anything. they think they can fix the human. even if they have to kill all those who oppose their efforts. it is one reason they try to indoctrinate young people, why they want government day care, why they think children belong to the collective (the village), it is why they meddle in every other person's business while their own lives are often dismal wrecks.

First, I feel as if you think a British news outlet attaching themselves to an adult victim of child rape to insert themselves into American politics is leftist, then you are correct.Secondly,Ms. Hillary did not want the case and only took it as the prosecutor asked her to as the man, as most predators of women and children do, asked for a woman lawyer. She was one of a handful available out of Fayetteville, Ark. University.Thirdly, using the little girls family status as single head of household made her ripe for more terrorism as according to law back in the '70s. I can only imagine the psychiatric tests of the '70s would be similar to Texas psychiatric tests of today.Fourth, and finally, Ms. Hillary, now president elect hopeful, used the same tactic when describing why her philandering husband did what he did to other women-he came from a broken home with only a mother therefore he isn't responsible for his behavior..and, Ms. Hillary made it clear she wasn't responsible for his behavior either and the women were merely trailer trash-mush like the little girl who was brutally raped alongside a highway in Arkansas in '75.

The brother of Oscar Pistorius says he is "heartbroken" after the athlete's sentence for murdering his girlfriend was more than doubled.

South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal increased Pistorius's sentence for killing Reeva Steenkamp from six years to 13 years and five months after prosecutors argued his original term was "shockingly lenient".

The Paralympian was not in court for the ruling.

Afterwards, his brother Carl wrote on Twitter: "Shattered, heartbroken, gutted.

"We have all suffered incomprehensible loss. The death of Reeva was and still is a great loss for our family too."

Pistorius was jailed in July 2016 after being found guilty on appeal of murdering Ms Steenkamp on Valentine's Day 2013.

The court has now given Pistorius the minimum 15-year sentence for murder in South Africa, less time he has already served.

Tania Koen, a spokeswoman for the Steenkamp family, said: "This is an emotional thing for them. They just feel that their trust in the justice system has been confirmed this morning."

Pistorius claimed he mistook 29-year-old Ms Steenkamp for an intruder when he fired four bullets through the bathroom door in the early hours of 14 February 2013.

Judge Thokozile Masipa initially ruled the state had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the double amputee was guilty of premeditated murder, but may still be guilty of culpable homicide - equivalent to the UK law of manslaughter.

He was sentenced to five years for culpable homicide, and was eventually released from prison and placed under house arrest.

His conviction was then overturned in favour of murder following an appeal, and he was sentenced to six years.

In July 2016, South Africa's National Prosecuting Agency deemed the murder sentence "shockingly too lenient", announcing plans to appeal for a longer sentence.

South African legal commentator Llewellyn Curlewis told Sky News this will "probably be the final verdict" and says there is unlikely to be a further appeal.

"From a lawyer's perspective... this is the correct interpretation of the law," he said.

"As far as I'm concerned, this was the correct outcome at long last."

He should have gotten the minimum at the very start since it was clearly murder.He may well appeal but since this is the mandatory minimum for murder which is what he is guilty of, he would gain nothing and ran the risk of having his sentence further extended , which i personally think it should have been.30 years minimum given his track record with guns and the fact he deliberately killed her in cold blood, probably premeditated if she had decided to dump him and he didn't like that.

Why the state of Arkansas thought that crucial evidence would not be needed in a child rape trial is anyone's guess.Did they think their state hired labs would be the last word in the case?

Fast forward to 1993 and the West Memphis Three. They relied on hysteria and hearsay to convict then. Demonic forces changing the color of the watch back plate from black to white. Even had a key witness convinced she could use the public library if she was working undercover for the cops and used his exclusive library card...a Delta force type thingymagigger. Dem punks wear black and listened to heavy metal is all I heard when I watched.Screw the fact a man with blood all over him and pants soaked to the knees left evidence in a restaurant nearby.Fast forward to more recently when retired federal investigators wish to insert themselves and their pseudo-science to retry the case for copyrights and promotion of themselves and their books. Anything they'd have to say wouldn't shed light on lack of evidence and the police weren't willing to collect and store it properly.

It surprises me none that one of their own federal agents got busted for child porn and I'm willing to bet there are many more that no one has ever investigated as they think them above reproach.